The Lynch List, 01-Mar-2010

Still recovering from the gold-medal hockey hangover…

First, some sanity has been found in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal: the Human Rights Tribunal decision against Bill Whatcott has been overturned. Whatcott had distributed several different flyers condemning homosexual behavior and the promotion of it in schools. In 2005, the Tribunal found him guilty of transgressing section 14(1) – the prarie version of the federal section 13(1) – and demanded he pay the complainant $17,500. The Court of Queen’s Bench Saskatchewan heard Whatcott’s appeal but sided with the Tribunal. Now, in a 3-0 decision, the Court of Appeals has reversed the previous decisions.

Whatcott’s pamphlets — one of which was entitled Sodomites in our Public Schools — used crude and offensive language, but they were protected by freedom of expression provisions in the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, the decision says. The flyers were expressing moral objections to homosexual practices rather than condemnation of gay people themselves, and they were part of a public debate about sexual information taught in schools.

Also noted by FFOF, Walker Morrow, Slap Upside the Head, BigCityLib, even GayAndRight agrees.

Second, Give them an inch, and they take a mile, then call it a right. The Ontario government put in place a Special Dietary Allowance to help those with doctor-recommended diets afford the consequential increase in food costs. This is one of the only programs in the world that gives obese clients more money to buy food. But now that a few have complained to the Tribunal, the government is being forced to amend and expand the program to fit an ever-increasing proportion of the population. So why doesn’t the Ontario government just axe the program and be done with this mess? ’cause it’s now a right:

Cindy Wilkey of the Income Security Advocacy Centre, co-counsel for two of the complainants, [said] “Cancelling the program would put the health of thousands of people at risk, impairing their ability to meet dietary needs that are recognized components of medical treatment.”

This case was heard on the basis that the Ontario government was discriminating on the basis of disability. That error is so glaring that it needs to be corrected – the complainants felt that the Ontario government wasn’t discriminating enough.

Third, The mayor of Saguenay is being hauled in front of the Quebec HRT for praying before council meetings. The lucky complainant has asked for $150,000. Making money by working for it is just so old-fashioned.

Fourth, Scaramouche acknowledges the obvious trend of the Tribunal members “preferring” testimonial evidence from complainants to that from the defendants, and gets threatened with contempt proceedings (read the comments)

Fifth, Not only can rights and freedoms be decreed and annulled by federal appointees, even a city hall can get in on the racket. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has teamed up with the City of Toronto in promoting their faux right to housing. Apparently everyone in Toronto didn’t know about this right, so they have to re-educate us stupid proles (if I might borrow a phrase from theodensdaughter).

Sixth, Remember the nightclub dress-code human rights complaint? The BC Human Rights Tribunal dismissed it, thank goodness.

Finally, In yet another episode of “When Two Leftist Principles Collide”, a white hegemonist launches a Human Rights complaint against the police. Oh, the quandry – do we kick out the racist bigot or tear another strip off the police? Maybe they should include white hegemonists as a protected group – that would generate some more complaints.